[2010] EWPCC 018
IN THE PATENTS COUNTY COURT
St. Dunstan’s House
133-137 Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1HD
Date: 17/12/2010
Before :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRSS QC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case No: OCL 70126
Between:

	Media C.A.T. Limited	Claimant	
	- and -		
	Allan Billington	Defendant	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment given on paper without a hearing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A no official shorthand note shall be taken of this judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

                            …………………………………………………...

His Honour Judge Birss QC: 

1.	I have before me a letter from the defendant, Allan Billington in this matter.  The letter is dated 8th December 2010.  The case is another one of the series of cases brought by the company Media C.A.T. Ltd based on an allegation of copyright infringement relating to pornographic films by peer to peer file sharing on the internet.   Media C.A.T. Ltd instruct the solicitors ACS:Law in these cases.   The reader is referred to my earlier judgment Media C.A.T. v A and others [2010] EWPCC 017 for a preliminary analysis of the Particulars of Claim applicable in those cases.   The case before me is another of the same.  I note that the Particulars of Claim here are in substance the same albeit that there is no claim for an injunction at all in this case.
2.	The claim form in the present case was issued on 8th November 2010.  Until the letter from Mr Billington, there was no evidence on the court file it had been served.  
3.	The Patents County Court has new procedural rules applicable from 1st October 2010 which are intended, amongst other things to streamline the resolution of smaller intellectual property disputes.  To facilitate this approach my clerk and I conducted a review in October/November of all the pending and newly issued cases in the Patents County Court files.   Emerging from this review was the presence of 13 more or less identical cases commenced by Media C.A.T Limited in September /October 2010.  All are of the same general form as described in my previous judgment.  
4.	In November 2010 a further 14 similar Media C.A.T. Limited cases have been issued.  This case is one of them.  
5.	Some of the cases are defended but the court file in most of the 27 cases consists of little more than a claim form (including Particulars of Claim).
6.	Mr Billington’s letter is addressed to my clerk and states as follows:-
“Dear Madam,
Following our phone call today regarding the claim form I have received from yourselves obo ACS:Law, I apologise for the belated reply as on the claim form there is no mention of timescale, or a acknowledge service form for me to respond to, which I believe should have been included. 
My last correspondence on 1st November to ACS Law was advising them that I have not infringed any copyright, I refuted the claim in that, they have an IP address, which they claim relates to my computer Firstly I have 5 computers so I do not know which one they refer to. Also I am not the sole user of the computers. I asked them for further evidence of this alleged infringement. I then receive the said claim form. I have been liaising with trading standards as I have received threatening letters from ACS Law demanding monies.  I was not sure whether I was subject to some sort of scam as when you type ACS Law into Google, the information suggests it is a scam. 
Secondly the claimant does not exist there is no Allan Billington. My name is Aaron Billington at the address given. 
I feel that ACS Law have acted very hastily in this matter and have not given me the opportunity to resolve this outside court.”
7.	It appears from the letter that the claim form in this case may have been served without a response pack.  
8.	On the face of it this case and each of the other cases are all related to each other.  They have the same claimant making a closely analogous claim in each case.  The defendants are different but the nature of the alleged infringements appears to be the same each time.  In the circumstances I have decided to take an unusual course and to exercise the court’s power to make orders of its own initiative under CPR Part 3 rule 3.3(1).   The order I will make is an order to convene a hearing for directions in this case and in all the parallel Media C.A.T. Limited cases in the Patents County Court files at the moment.   There is no evidence in the courts files that any of these cases have concluded although it is obvious that correspondence between the claimant’s solicitors and the defendants takes place.
9.	The Court’s power to make orders of its own initiative includes the power to make an order without hearing the parties of giving them an opportunity to make representations (r3.3(4)).   It seems to me that it would not be right for me to make any directions on that basis at this stage.  The sole order I will make under r3.3(4) without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations is an order convening a hearing.   The parties should note that, pursuant to r 3.3(5), when the court has made an order under r 3.3(4), a party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed and the order must contain a statement of the right to make such an application.   The order I will make in this case is appended to this judgment. 
10.	I will set a date for the hearing of 17th January 2011.  That date is sufficiently far in advance that the parties have time to prepare.  
11.	The case numbers for the parallel Media C.A.T. Ltd cases in which I will make a corresponding order are set out in the schedule to this judgment. 
12.	At this stage I will leave the directions to be given in January as a matter to be considered at the hearing.  The parties may wish to consider proposing a timetable for the orderly resolution of this case, disclosure and requests for further information. 

FORM OF ORDER

TAKE NOTICE THAT PURSUANT TO CPR Part 3 rule 3.3(1) UPON THE COURT’S OWN INITIATIVE THE COURT PROPOSES to give directions in this case and in a number of parallel similar cases at a hearing at 10.30 am on Monday 17th January 2011 at Court 3, St Dunstan’s House, 133 - 137 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1HD (Tel: Clerk to HHJudge Birss QC 020 7947 7754)

This case and the parallel similar cases referred to are listed in the schedule to this order.  In each case the claimant is the same but the defendant is a different individual. 

AND PURSUANT TO CPR Part 3 rule 3.3(4) UPON THE COURT’S OWN INITIATIVE and without having heard the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.	A hearing will take place at 10.30 am on Monday 17th January 2011 in this case and in the parallel similar cases listed in the schedule. 
AND TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to CPR Part 3 rule 3.3 (5) any party affected by this order has the right to apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed.

SCHEDULE of apparently similar cases

Claim No: OCL 70086
Claim No: OCL 70087
Claim No: OCL 70088
Claim No: OCL 70101
Claim No: OCL 70102
Claim No: OCL 70103
Claim No: OCL 70104
Claim No: OCL 70106
Claim No: OCL 70107
Claim No: OCL 70108
Claim No: OCL 70113
Claim No: OCL 70114
Claim No: OCL 70115
Claim No: OCL 70122
Claim No: OCL 70123
Claim No: OCL 70124
Claim No: OCL 70125
Claim No: OCL 70126
Claim No: OCL 70127
Claim No: OCL 70128
Claim No: OCL 70129
Claim No: OCL 70130
Claim No: OCL 70131
Claim No: OCL 70132
Claim No: OCL 70133
Claim No: OCL 70135
Claim No: OCL 70136